Much of what is passed about truth regarding the Catholic Church
is based on myth and sometime bigotry. Find out what the Church really
teaches.

About cwlibrary Tracts

"Catholic
Answers" produced most of The
tracts in this section. Those residing on this site are earlier versions
collected from CIN and other sources at a time when specific permission
to distribute and reproduce the information was granted. Visit Catholic
Answers to obtain the latest tracts and to purchase printed versions.

The (F) appearing after selected tract titles means the tract is part
of the "Fathers Know Best" series and contains a collection of quotes
from the early Church Fathers.

Papal Infallibility

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which
is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular,
Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the
charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They
imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary
blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation
when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal
infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is
not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that
belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body
of bishops as a whole, when, in moral unity, they solemnly teach a doctrine
as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and
their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who
hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although
the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they
can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so,
even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining
the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and
while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur
in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This
authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical
council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal
Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of
faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops
(Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it
is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the
supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren
in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine
of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from
the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced
with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in
blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared
in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the
early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed
and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility
is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my
sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your
faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20)
and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into
all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee
the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim.
3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority
of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer
understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the
faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church.
For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this
way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence
apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters
59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient
attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons
131, 10).

Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone, by an
ecumenical council, or by the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium
through the centuries—usually is made only when some doctrine has
been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the
large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of
which have never been formally defined by an official papal statement.
There are, in fact, few topics on which it would be possible for a pope
to make an infallible decision without duplicating one or more infallible
pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching
authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs
should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear
straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For
them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what
it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously.
This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility
and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or
give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity
found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand
out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed
with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility,
which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not
to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.
A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what
he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings
often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace
that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known,
but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute
for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally
teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does
not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to
teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through
study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his
position.

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point
to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile
Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16).
For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was
non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters
of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching.
Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal.
2:15–16). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own
teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much
less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of
infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles
of the New Testament. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible
with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal
infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of
the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those
of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all
opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases
that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in
giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply
the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the
requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at
Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope
Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that
held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine
one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of
the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald
Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy
ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact,
he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong.
But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not
defining a doctrine."

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist
for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has
it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’?
I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the
kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh,
well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the
best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time
with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema
after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to
contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get
this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s
observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does
show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems
from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible
Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed
by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment
of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New
Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions,
a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in
fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized
that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch.
In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever
the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ
is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1
[A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its
continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible
so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some
method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops,
and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed
through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly
through the its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and
the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error,
and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself.
If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the
Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error
and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady
guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular
pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will
be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made.
It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being
so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of
salvation is the main function of the Church. For men to be saved, they
must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock
to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching.
And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church
(Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence.
But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease
to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church
cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the
faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle
Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation
of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious
truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told
his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you
rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).